which telescope?
September 29, 2011 12:09 AM Subscribe
When buying your first astronomy telescope, for the same given price (say $500) would you prefer a larger aperture (Dobsonian) or a basic computerised Go-To function?
You get a lot more aperture for your dollar with a dobsonian (say 200mm versus 130mm), that is clear. However do you spend more time not actually finding stuff and dicking about? What do intermediate users, who can remember their beginners days, say?
You get a lot more aperture for your dollar with a dobsonian (say 200mm versus 130mm), that is clear. However do you spend more time not actually finding stuff and dicking about? What do intermediate users, who can remember their beginners days, say?
The Dobsonian would be a good idea, but make sure you are aware of its bulk before spending the money.
posted by inauthentic at 1:14 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by inauthentic at 1:14 AM on September 29, 2011
(I don't know about astronomy, but maybe this is a factor?: Take the one which is upgradeable to also include the other later ... ?)
posted by krilli at 3:25 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by krilli at 3:25 AM on September 29, 2011
The general wisdom is go for the bigger aperture but the key is finding stuff. Do you have a local astronomy club you can connect with to learn your way around the sky? Portability is certainly an issue though - for $500 you're potentially looking at a 10" Dob and that's going to be 6' + in length plus a base so schlepping it is non-trivial. The advantages to computer driven scopes are obvious in terms of finding stuff and staying with it as the planet moves. I live with a couple of astronomy obsessives (more telescopes than people in the house at this point) who really enjoy being involved with a local club connected with a university. Besides, star parties are fun if chilly! If you're in SE Michigan mefi-mail me. It seems like learning one's way around the sky without a computer driven scope is pretty rare these days. I know my husband has spent many hours teaching our son to find stuff (and I've never learned most of that).
posted by leslies at 4:11 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by leslies at 4:11 AM on September 29, 2011
Best answer: "Points of Light" syndrome is what I call what happens after people look at the planets and moon. If the person the scope is for doesn't know their way around the sky they'll just end up seeing a bunch of points of light, get totally bored, and then stop, wasting the investment. If they have the patience to learn the sky and how to find things (much harder than it sounds with high mags, wastes observing time) then yes, go for the bigger dob but make sure a computer can be added later in case they want the convenience. Otherwise go smaller and get the computer to begin with.
posted by jwells at 5:39 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by jwells at 5:39 AM on September 29, 2011
How good is the current computer find technology? Do you still have to set up your mount just perfectly, or can you just go out, spot three bright objects and the computer figure out the rest? If it requires perfect setup get the Dobsonian.
And how much of a difference in aperture are we talking here? If all you're going to get is the bright objects, you don't need the computer control since they're pretty easy to find.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:03 AM on September 29, 2011
And how much of a difference in aperture are we talking here? If all you're going to get is the bright objects, you don't need the computer control since they're pretty easy to find.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:03 AM on September 29, 2011
Sky and Telescope magazine has some good advice, such as this article (which contains links to additional advice). I have also seen beginning astronomers advised to get a good pair f binoculars before investing in a telescope, so you might consider that if you haven't done so already.
posted by TedW at 6:19 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by TedW at 6:19 AM on September 29, 2011
If you want to noodle around the sky looking at interesting things, then buy the Dobsonian & a copy of this. You won't regret it.
On the other hand, if you want to do astrophotography, the Dobsonian will be no good at all!
posted by pharm at 6:25 AM on September 29, 2011
On the other hand, if you want to do astrophotography, the Dobsonian will be no good at all!
posted by pharm at 6:25 AM on September 29, 2011
Best answer: I started with a pair of 10x50 binoculars, then an 8" Dobsonian, then a much more expensive 6" SCT in a full goto mount.
I personally hate the goto functions. Even with the latest three-point alignment with GPS, it always seems to take a lot of time to sync it.
My main objection is that the goto functions take away from my sense of accomplishment in finding an object. For me it's just as much fun to find an object as it is to sit and observe it. I like being able to *know* where the Ring Nebula is located, rather than punching 'M57' into the handset and letting the computer do the work.
I still use the 6" SCT, but with a manual mount and only if I don't have time to drag out the Dobsonian.
My recommendation is a pair of binoculars (7x50, 8x50 or 10x50), a red flashlight and a good book-type star atlas. If you're ready for a scope, I would start with a a 6" or 8" Dobsonian. I started with an Orion XT8, which runs about $350. It is big and takes up most of a coat closet. Consider upgrading to a right-angle finder for the Dobsonian. If not you'll need to budget for some Advil for your neck.
Also, I used Stellarium (free) on my laptop when I started observing. It's awesome.
posted by foggy out there now at 6:28 AM on September 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
I personally hate the goto functions. Even with the latest three-point alignment with GPS, it always seems to take a lot of time to sync it.
My main objection is that the goto functions take away from my sense of accomplishment in finding an object. For me it's just as much fun to find an object as it is to sit and observe it. I like being able to *know* where the Ring Nebula is located, rather than punching 'M57' into the handset and letting the computer do the work.
I still use the 6" SCT, but with a manual mount and only if I don't have time to drag out the Dobsonian.
My recommendation is a pair of binoculars (7x50, 8x50 or 10x50), a red flashlight and a good book-type star atlas. If you're ready for a scope, I would start with a a 6" or 8" Dobsonian. I started with an Orion XT8, which runs about $350. It is big and takes up most of a coat closet. Consider upgrading to a right-angle finder for the Dobsonian. If not you'll need to budget for some Advil for your neck.
Also, I used Stellarium (free) on my laptop when I started observing. It's awesome.
posted by foggy out there now at 6:28 AM on September 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
You need to align your mount perfectly for the computer-find to work; it's finicky. I've talked to several casual amateurs who've invested in such a system, think it would be a quick and easy route to observing pleasure, but they could never get it aligned right, and so were very frustrated with it.
As others are saying, get a pair of binocs and a good atlas—big enough to read easily, but not so big it's a pain to haul around—and learn to star-hop with binocs to find fainter objects. When you're good at that, you're ready to get a Dob, and you should buy as much aperture as you can afford.
posted by BrashTech at 6:32 AM on September 29, 2011
As others are saying, get a pair of binocs and a good atlas—big enough to read easily, but not so big it's a pain to haul around—and learn to star-hop with binocs to find fainter objects. When you're good at that, you're ready to get a Dob, and you should buy as much aperture as you can afford.
posted by BrashTech at 6:32 AM on September 29, 2011
Oh, and the book that pharm just linked - that book is awesome.
If you start with binoculars, consider this book as well. Even though I have multiple telescopes in the house, most of my all-time favorite observing nights have been spent in a reclining lounge chair with a great pair of binoculars (Canon 15x50 IS) and that book.
posted by foggy out there now at 6:37 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
If you start with binoculars, consider this book as well. Even though I have multiple telescopes in the house, most of my all-time favorite observing nights have been spent in a reclining lounge chair with a great pair of binoculars (Canon 15x50 IS) and that book.
posted by foggy out there now at 6:37 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
Best answer: It depends on your use of the telescope.
I personally love the goto function on my Meade LX90 because it allows me to do quick tours of the sky when I have guests that I want to share the awesomeness of the stars with. (They're not going to sit there for 20 minutes while I try and locate something.)
Of course, the bigger you go, the more likely you are to appreciate the computerized goto function.
If you haven't already sat outside with a good pair of binoculars (8x50's being the general recommendation - and digitally stabilized if you decide that you want that instead of a telescope) and learned the constellations and studied the moon then you're in for a treat - it's a great way to start and to understand the distinction between what a telescope can best be used for (looking for faint and deep-sky objects, IMHO).
If you've already gone through that whole process then I would recommend bigger aperture.
And by the way, have you looked at these?
posted by HopStopDon'tShop at 9:48 AM on September 29, 2011
I personally love the goto function on my Meade LX90 because it allows me to do quick tours of the sky when I have guests that I want to share the awesomeness of the stars with. (They're not going to sit there for 20 minutes while I try and locate something.)
Of course, the bigger you go, the more likely you are to appreciate the computerized goto function.
If you haven't already sat outside with a good pair of binoculars (8x50's being the general recommendation - and digitally stabilized if you decide that you want that instead of a telescope) and learned the constellations and studied the moon then you're in for a treat - it's a great way to start and to understand the distinction between what a telescope can best be used for (looking for faint and deep-sky objects, IMHO).
If you've already gone through that whole process then I would recommend bigger aperture.
And by the way, have you looked at these?
posted by HopStopDon'tShop at 9:48 AM on September 29, 2011
Never had goto back when I learned as a kid, so my experience was that much of the fun was finding things (the hunt), which also served to teach me the sky and provide many surprise finds along the way ("wow, what's that?!")
Buying a good telescope is a complex decision, given the cost. (Right now I like my 15x70 binoculars until I make a decision. My skies are not dark, so I can't decide.) Do find a club, and look through others' scopes and talk. Also important factors not much discussed yet: how dark is it where you will observe? How far will you move the telescope? How often will you take it to observing locations by car? What do you like to look at?
posted by lathrop at 11:14 AM on September 29, 2011
Buying a good telescope is a complex decision, given the cost. (Right now I like my 15x70 binoculars until I make a decision. My skies are not dark, so I can't decide.) Do find a club, and look through others' scopes and talk. Also important factors not much discussed yet: how dark is it where you will observe? How far will you move the telescope? How often will you take it to observing locations by car? What do you like to look at?
posted by lathrop at 11:14 AM on September 29, 2011
I asked a similar question about a year ago. I ended up buying an 8" Dobsonian and a set of decent eyepieces and I have not been disappointed.
posted by tr0ubley at 4:02 PM on September 29, 2011
posted by tr0ubley at 4:02 PM on September 29, 2011
Response by poster: Thanks for answers so far guys n gals. I've done the binoculars and atlas (and stellarium, a rocking program) thing, I'm stepping up.
it seems like a philosophical question, what sort of thing you enjoy.
posted by wilful at 6:52 PM on September 29, 2011
it seems like a philosophical question, what sort of thing you enjoy.
posted by wilful at 6:52 PM on September 29, 2011
Response by poster: BTW, folks, what is the name of the principle employed by early astronomers to determine the distances to celestial objects using the displacement of the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight and measured by the angle between those two lines?
posted by wilful at 7:57 PM on September 29, 2011
posted by wilful at 7:57 PM on September 29, 2011
what is the name of the principle employed by early astronomers to determine the distances to celestial objects using the displacement of the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight and measured by the angle between those two lines?
Are you thinking of parallax, which gives us the parsec as a unit of distance?
posted by TedW at 8:50 PM on September 29, 2011
Are you thinking of parallax, which gives us the parsec as a unit of distance?
posted by TedW at 8:50 PM on September 29, 2011
TedW has it, it's parallax. It's still used today, actually: for example, the Hipparcos satellite relied on parallax to derive its distance measurements.
posted by Upton O'Good at 11:16 PM on September 29, 2011
posted by Upton O'Good at 11:16 PM on September 29, 2011
« Older What do I need to ask the vet about my puppy's... | How can I get my Chrome fonts to stop looking like... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Signed, a very beginner astronomer.
posted by titanium_geek at 12:19 AM on September 29, 2011